The Dominion THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1921. THE DRIFT OF POPULATION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 242, 7 July 1921, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1921. THE DRIFT OF POPULATION

Ff.om the point of view of economic and social progress, one of the biggest problems facing the Dominion is that of securing a more effective distribution of population as between the two broad divisions of town and country. The preliminary returns of the census taken a month or two ago showed that the four principal centres gained more population in the previous five years than all the rest, of! the tountry—rural areas and secondary and small towns combined. This state of affairs is not peculiar to the Dominion. It seems slather to be typical of what is going on in all countries with which comparisons cun reasonably be instituted. Preliminary returns of the census lately taken in Australia demonstrate that there, as here, a limited number of large centres are absorbing an abnormal and increasing share of the total; populaitioji. It jis estimated (the detailed figures are not yet available) that the six State capitals share between them 42 per cent, of the total Commonwealth population—that is to say about 2,270,000 people are domiciled in the six capitals, leaving some 3,150,000 for the secondary and small towns and rural areas. If this estimate is accurate, three-fifths of the total population increase during the past ten years has been in the six capital cities, and only two-fifths in the whole remaining area of the Commonwealth. Sydney and Melbourne each contain nearly of the whole population of the States of which they are respectively the capitals. To some extent these two cities are even gaining population at the expense of the less important State capitals, but in all the State capitals, population is increasing more rapidly than in rural areas and country towns. Mych the same tendencies are in evidence in Great Britain and the United States. Statistics compiled by the Census Bureau of the United States show that in that country 54,816,000 people live in cities and towns with a population of 2500 or more, while 50,866.000 live in rural areas. Included in these areas, however, are many small towns. When account is taken of all the town-dwellers of the United States, it appears that only 38 per cent, of the total population is engaged in rural industry. The surprising fact is brought out that ten years ago there were twenty million more people engaged in rural industry in the United States than there were at the end of last year—this notwithstanding a great increase in the total population. In America, as in this country and in Australia, it is found that, the largest cities show very much the most rapid increase. In several of the agricultural States of the Middle West, the latest census shows a decline in population. Sonic of them hold a smaller population than they did twenty years ago. As to the general drift, the editor of the American lieview of Reviews observed recently that even in California there is a tendency to forsake the farm for the town. "Can it.be wondered,” ho asks, “that the industrious Jap tries to occupy lands which the white residents neglect?” The experience of older countries very plainly demonstrates that the drift of population which is now all but universal —a drift not so much from rural areas into towns as from rural areas and small towns into a limited number of large centres —is diametrically opposed to national well-being. In vast congested hives of humanity like London and New York nearly every problem of physical, moral, and material welfare is intensified and made far more difficult of solution than it would be if population were better distributed. It ought to be a definite aim of public nolicy in a country like New Zealand to prevent even a remote anprnach to the massing of city population which seems beyond remedv in older lands. An Australian writer declared recently that to try to reverse the present dyift of population was to null flfi’.’i inst human nafure—that the city offered such attractions in the way of bustling liveliness and luxury, of schools, entertainment, and every ainenitx of culture as would "appeal tn th” weakness of human nature in snite nf all.” Tn this country, at least, It Is rather early .to accept, any such fatalistic conclusion. A sound pol-

icy of national development, using these words in their broad meaning, may still do much to remedy what is in the existing distribution of population. In the extremes it has attained in countries like Britain and the United States city congestion is largely an outcome of economic conditions and limitations that are rapidly becoming obsolete. In this country, the development of hydro-electric power which can readily be, made available at any point where it is required will in itself offer a great impetus to. the wide distribution of secondary industries, and due enterprise in this direction will assist materially to bring about a better distribution of population. As matters stand the undue massing of population in the larger centres hinders development and tends to limit the total production of wealth in the Dominion. Closer settlement and subdivision will hardly suffice in themselves to amend this state of affairs, but the Dominion offers facilities for a distribution of manufacturing industries which, with the due development of its basic primary industries, would go far to ensure a well-balanced distribution of its population in the comparatively near future. With secondary industries springing up in small towns and rural areas, the problem of providing up-to-date facilities for transport throughout the country would, of course, be greatly simplified. With economic development proceeding on these lines, and those engaged in our primary industries encouraged instead of being constantly girded at, a large Proportion at leasit of the population outside.the cities would soon attain conditions of life and work which they would be unwilling to exchange for the lot of the citydweller. ’